West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/82/2015

Sri Sanatan Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

&

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

 

Complaint Case No.82 /2015

                                                       

                                      Sri Sanatan Mondal…….……………………Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.;

2. The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Co. Ltd..........Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Asim Kumar  Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Chowdhury, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 07/01/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a permanent resident of village Kulfeni in the district of Paschim Medinipur and he purchased a truck bearing registration no.WB-33B/2669 and took insurance policy with the opposite party no.1-New India Assurance Company Ltd.  The complainant paid the premium covering insurance of the aforesaid truck and after receiving premium amount, opposite party no.1 issued Insurance policy being no.512602/31/13/01/00000999 for the period from 24/06/2013to 23/06/2014 which was issued from the Kharagpur branch of opposite party no.1.  On 22/04/2014, the said truck of the complainant met with an accident at Mollarpur in the district of Birbhum and due to such accident, the vehicle was burnt due to internal short circuit and thereafter the vehicle dashed against one road side old house.  Police informed the matter to Mollarpur police station and on getting such information, police came to the spot and called the fire brigade for extinguishing the fire.  The complainant also lodged a G.D. entry at  Mollarpur P.S. vide G.D. no.106/14 dated 05/07/2014 regarding the said incident. Fire brigade came and

Contd…………………P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

extinguished the fire.  Said unfortunate incident of accident was duly informed to the opposite party-Insurance Company within stipulated period for investigation of the actual incident.  Complainant also submitted claim form along with documents i.e. Blue Book, Tax Token, G.D. copy, fitness certificate etc. along with insurance policy on 03/07/2014 and in spite of receiving those documents, the insurance company wrote a letter dated 04/08/2014 to the complainant for submission of D.L., fire brigade report and copy of F.I.R..  On receiving the said letter, the complainant went to the office of the opposite party no.1 and submitted all documents except the fire brigade report and copy of F.I.R.  It is stated by the complainant that there was no F.I.R in respect of the said incident and as such there cannot be any question for submission of copy of F.I.R.  However, the complainant could not be able to collect the fire brigade report due to heavy expenses.  Thereafter, the opposite party-Insurance Company sent two letters dated 16/01/2015 and 25/02/2015 to the complainant asking him to submit the NOC from the financier, load challan with weighbridge report, copy of agreement in respect of settlement with the owner of the abandoned damaged house and note of acceptance of the surveyor’s assessment on cash loss net of salvage for Rs.9,48,500/- which was duly submitted by the complainant with written representation dated 20/03/2015.  Complainant on several occasions went to the office of the opposite party no.1 as there was inordinate delay for settling the claim and thereafter the complainant also sent a lawyer’s letter dated 02/07/2015 to the opposite party no.1 with a request for giving present status of the claim of the complainant but no reply has been received from the opposite party no.1 till now.  It is stated that the opposite party-insurance company intentionally and willfully avoiding the liability of the payment of insurance benefit and there is gross deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party no.1.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing  the opposite party-insurance company to pay Rs.12,00,000/- as total loss assessed by the  assessor-cum-surveyor with up-to-date interest and for compensation and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- and 5000/- respectively.

                   Both the opposite parties namely the New India Assurance Company and Tata Motors Finance Company Ltd. have contested this case by filing two separate written objections.

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.2-Tata Motor Finance Ltd. that the vehicle in question was funded by them to the complainant and the opposite party no.2 being the financier shall be entitled to appropriate any money receipt from the Insurance Company and since there is no prayer for relief against this opposite party no.2, so they are unnecessary party in this case.

  Contd…………………P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

              Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party-Insurance Company, as made out in their written objection, that on intimation of the alleged occurrence as to the burning of the vehicle due to short circuit, the process for assessment of the loss was started through appointment of surveyor cum loss assessor by the opposite party no.1.  The appointed surveyor cum loss assessor Sri Kousik Saha assessed the loss as on “net loss basis” of Rs.9,48,500/- to which the complainant gave verbal consent.  During process of claim, the opposite party no.1 as per norms and conditions of the policy asked for police final report, fire brigade report and the vehicle documents for verification in order to know the actual loss and to ascertain the admissibility of the claim.  Opposite party no.1 issued letters dated 04/08/2014, 16/01/2015 and 25/02/2015 to the complainant requesting him to submit documents like fire brigade report, documentary evidence as regards to the incident and verification and correction of estimate, road challan with Weigh bridge report but the  complainant instead of submitting the aforesaid documents, which were required for processing the claim, submitted a vague reply.  Although the complainant submitted a note of acceptance in respect of the assessment of loss made by the surveyor Sri  Kousik Saha on “net loss basis” to the tune of Rs.9,48,500/-, but due to non furnishing of documents, as asked above, by the opposite party, the settlement of claim could not be effected by the opposite party no.1  It is stated that non settlement of the claim was due to non furnishing of requirements by the complainant who was asked by the opposite party to file the aforesaid documents being important documents and without which there cannot be any settlement of claim.  It is contended by the opposite party no.1 that there is no deficiency in service on their part and therefore the present petition of complaint is liable to be rejected.

                                                  Point for decision

                          Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?                     

Decision with reasons

                  In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite parties adduced any evidence either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them.  Admittedly, the vehicle in question was duly insured with  the opposite party- insurance company for the period from 24/06/2013 to 23/06/2014.  It is not denied and disputed by the parties that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 22/04/2014 and in such accident, the vehicle was burnt due to internal short circuit and the said vehicle dashed against one road side house.  It is also undisputed that after the said accident, the complainant informed the matter to the opposite patty-insurance company and he submitted claim form for insurance benefit along with certain documents.

Contd…………………P/4

 

 

 

( 4 )

According to the complainant, in spite of submission of documents except the copy of  F.I.R and fire brigade report, the opposite party did not settle the claim for which the complainant through his advocate Mr. Pinaki Sengupta sent a letter on 02/07/2015 to the opposite party no.1 with request for giving present status of the claim but no reply has been sent by the opposite party-insurance company.  According to the complainant the opposite party-insurance company intentionally and willfully avoiding the liability of payment of the insurance benefit in respect of the total loss of the insured vehicle and therefore they are guilty of gross deficiency in service. Now the question arises as to whether there is any deficiency in service as alleged on the part of the opposite party- insurance company in settling the insurance claim of the vehicle in question.  On this score, we find from the respective pleadings of the parties and the documents filed by them that after the occurrence of accident the complainant informed the said matter to the opposite party-insurance company and he also submitted claim form before the opposite party no.1. We further find that admittedly the opposite party no.1 processed  for  settlement of claim of insurance  and engaged a surveyor cum loss assessor named Sri Kousik Saha, who assessed the loss as on “net loss basis” of Rs.9,48,500/- .  According to the opposite party no.1, settlement of claim could not be finalized due to non furnishing of documents by the complainant as asked for by opposite party no.1.  Admittedly opposite party no.1 asked the complainant to furnish police final report, fire brigade report and vehicle documents.  It is none but the complainant has admitted in his pleadings that he is unable to collect fire brigade report due to heavy expense and regarding F.I.R. and police final report it is stated by the complainant that no F.I.R was at all lodged save and except a G.D at local P.S. and therefore there is no question for submission of copy of police final report.  According to opposite party no.1 for want of fire brigade report and other documents they are unable to settle the claim and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  It appears from the documents filed by the complainant that on 02/07/2015, he sent a letter to the opposite party no.1 through his lawyer Sri Pinaki Sengupta requesting the Branch Manager of opposite party no.1 to let known the complainant the present status of his claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter.   We are not getting the date of receipt of the said letter by the opposite party no.1 but we find that without waiting for a reasonable time for reply of the said letter, the complainant has filed this case on 28/07/2015.  We find from the documents submitted by the opposite party no.1 that as per instruction dated 20/07/2015 by the opposite party no.1, Sri Debasis Gupta, Insurance Investigator  took up investigation in the matter and he also submitted a report thereafter on 07/12/2015.  It thus appears that the process of settlement of claim of insurance in

Contd…………………P/5

 

 

 

 

( 5 )

question is very much in active process by the opposite party no.1 and therefore the opposite party no.1 cannot be held to be guilty of deficiency in service in settling the claim of insurance in question.  The complainant very hastily filed this case without waiting for a reasonable time for getting reply of his letter dated 02/07/2015.  It is therefore held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 in settling the claim of insurance in question and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.                                                                        

                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                         that the complaint case no.82/2015  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.     

               Dictated & Corrected by me

                               Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                          Sd/-

                          President                                    Member                                   President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur